Decreased sleep quality in Parkinson’s patients is associated with higher anxiety and depression prevalence and severity, and correlates with pain intensity and quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain, poor sleep quality, restless legs syndrome (RLS), and other symptoms are frequently reported by patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the impact that pain severity and interference has on non-motor symptoms (NMS) has not been extensively studied. The objective of the present study is to explore the relationship between sleep quality in PD to pain and other NMS that affect quality of life. METHODS: The study included 100 PD patients and 100 age and gender-matched controls assessed for pain severity and pain interference using the Brief Pain Inventory and sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Participants were also evaluated for their subjective levels of anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: PD patients with poor sleep quality had greater pain severity and pain interference than controls and PD patients with good or borderline sleep quality. PD patients with poor sleep quality also had the greatest case-ness and severity for depression and anxiety. However, RLS was not significantly correlated with depression, anxiety or pain. DISCUSSION: Poor sleep quality in PD patients is related to greater pain severity, pain interference, and more radiating and paresthestic pain that is independent of RLS. There is a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety in PD patients compared to controls, especially in PD patients with poor sleep quality. Our findings suggest a relationship between poor sleep quality in PD with pain, anxiety and depression. Prospective studies are warranted to investigate the causal relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".